{"id":"court_ctb_170_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":170,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re: : HO WAN KWOK, : Debtor. :","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re: : HO WAN KWOK, : Debtor. :\n\n: CHAPTER 11\n\n: Case No. 22-50073(JAM)\n\n: April 6, 2022\n\n### **LIMITED OPPOSITION OF CREDITORS RUI MA AND WEICAN MENG TO THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE TO APPOINT AN EXAMINER OR A CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nCreditors Rui Ma and Weican Meng (\"**Creditors**\"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this limited opposition to the motion of the United States Trustee (\"**UST**\") to appoint an examiner or a chapter 11 trustee in this case (the \"**UST Motion**\") [ECF 102], and respectfully state as follows:\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Creditors agree with the UST that the Debtor's conduct justifies appointment of a Trustee, however, such appointment at this time would not be effective or in the best interest of the estate and its creditors. The Debtor claims to have virtually no assets and appears to have no ordinary course operations that could potentially impact the estate without Court approval. Therefore, more information is needed before the UST can identify what precisely a trustee would be managing instead of the Debtor. Similarly, the Creditors agree with the UST that a thorough investigation respecting the Debtor's assets, income and expenses is necessary; however, the Committee (defined below) will be undertaking such tasks and the appointment of an examiner would be duplicative and wasteful of time and resources. Accordingly, the Creditors request the\n\nCourt allow the Committee time to undertake such investigation and defer the UST Motion to a later date to determine at that time whether such relief is warranted.\n\n#### **CREDITORS' OBJECTION**\n\n2. By the Motion, the UST seeks an order directing the appointment of an examiner under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) and/or (2), or in the alternative, an order directing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee under 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2) based on the best interests of creditors and the estate. According to the UST's *Notice of Amended Proposed Order Concerning the United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, in the Alternative, Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee*, the Debtor has agreed to the Court's directing the UST to appoint an examiner in this case. (ECF No. 116 at n.1).\n\n3. It is evident that there are many questions and potential claims concerning the Debtor's assets or, as the UST noted, the Debtor's \"self-created 'poverty'\", and the funding of his living arrangements, that warrant investigation by a non-Debtor fiduciary for the benefit of the estate and prepetition creditors. However, an examiner currently offers no benefit under the circumstances here.\n\n4. The 341 meeting, and discovery from prior litigations, makes clear that the Debtor will be uncooperative in any investigation into his financial affairs, assets, and interests. Moreover, any resulting report will be hearsay with limited benefit to the Court or the parties in interest, yet the investigation will be time-consuming and incur administrative expenses to the detriment of creditors generally. Most importantly, any such efforts by an examiner will be unnecessarily duplicative of, and could impede, the work of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"**Committee**\"), which has recently been appointed and has retained counsel who is quickly getting up to speed. Also, whereas a committee can seek derivative standing to pursue claims, an examiner cannot.\n\n5. In addition, based on, among other things, Judge Barry R. Ostrager's finding that the Debtor has engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members,\" it is also evident that the Debtor cannot be relied upon to marshal assets for the benefit of his estate and creditors. [*See* ECF 102 Exh. C (February 2, 2022 Decision and Order in the PAX Case), at p.1)]. However, a trustee offers little benefit to the estate at this time.\n\n6. The Debtor appears to have no identified ordinary course operations potentially impacting the estate that may be conducted without Court approval, let alone any that necessitate the immediate appointment of a trustee. To the extent that the Debtor seeks approval of any out of the ordinary course activities, the Committee will be monitoring the Debtor's activities and will intervene to prevent any action to the detriment of creditors. It is simply not clear what a trustee would manage or oversee. Further, any investigation that might be undertaken by a trustee would incur avoidable administrative costs at this time and would be duplicative of, and potentially could impede, the work of the Committee. While in a typical chapter 11 corporate case, a trustee would be warranted under similar facts, the unique facts here support not appointing a trustee at this time. Once more information is obtained through the Committee's investigation, or otherwise, the UST (or another party in interest) can seek to have a trustee (or examiner) appointed if warranted at such time.\n\n7. The Committee is best motivated and prepared to swiftly investigate the Debtor's financial affairs, assets, and interests and seek recoveries for the estate and its creditors. Indeed, under section 1103 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Committee is charged with investigating the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the Debtor, and any other matter relevant to the case of the formulation of a plan. 11 U.S.C.§ 1103(c). The Committee can report its findings to the Court and UST. The Committee should be afforded the opportunity to conduct its investigation without interference, which would be the most efficient way to proceed in this unique case.\n\n#### **CONCLUSION**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Creditors request that the Court deny the UST Motion to the extent it seeks appointment of an examiner, defer consideration of the UST Motion to the extent it seeks appointment of a trustee, and grant such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: April 6, 2022 */s/ Kristin B. Mayhew*  Kristin Mayhew **MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP** 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 kmayhew@mdmc-law.com\n\n- and -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari (*pro hac vice*) David S. Forsh (*pro hac vice*) **CALLARI PARTNERS LLC** One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 ccallari@callaripartners.com dforsh@callaripartners.com\n\n*Attorneys for Rui Ma and Weican Meng*\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI, Kristin B. Mayhew, hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Limited Opposition of Creditors Rui Ma And Weican Meng to the Motion of The United States Trustee to Appoint an Examiner or A Chapter 11 Trustee was filed with the Court on April 6, 2022. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the court's CM/ECF System.\n\n> /s/ Kristin B. Mayhew Kristin B. Mayhew","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n2022年4月6日\n\n债权人RUI MA（马锐）与WEICAN MENG（孟维参）对美国受托人关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议的有限反对意见\n\n债权人Rui Ma（马锐）与Weican Meng（孟维参）（以下简称“债权人”），通过其下述署名律师，特此对United States Trustee（美国受托人，以下简称“UST”）在本案中关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议（以下简称“UST动议”）[ECF 102]提交本有限反对意见，并恭敬陈述如下：\n\n前言\n\n1. 债权人认同UST关于债务人的行为构成指定受托人理由的观点，然而，目前进行此项指定既不具有实效，也不符合破产财产及债权人的最大利益。债务人声称自己几乎没有任何资产，且似乎没有任何未经法院批准可能对破产财产造成潜在影响的常规经营活动。因此，在UST能够明确受托人具体将代替债务人管理何种事务之前，需要获取更多信息。同样，债权人认同UST关于对债务人的资产、收入和支出进行彻底调查系属必要的观点；然而，委员会（定义见下文）将承担此类工作，指定审查员将导致工作重复并浪费时间和资源。因此，债权人请求法院给予委员会进行此类调查的时间，并将UST动议延期至稍后日期审理，届时再行确定该救济措施是否正当合理。\n\n债权人的异议\n\n2. 通过该动议，UST依据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(c)(1) 及/或 (2) 寻求一项责令指定审查员的命令，或择一地，基于债权人和破产财产的最大利益依据 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2) 寻求一项责令指定第11章受托人的命令。根据UST的《关于美国受托人请求下达指令指定审查员或择一地下达指令指定第11章受托人之动议的修订拟定命令通知》，债务人已同意法院指令UST在本案中指定审查员。（ECF No. 116 之脚注 1）。\n\n3. 显而易见，围绕债务人的资产，或者如UST所指出的债务人“自造的‘贫困’”，以及其生活安排的资金来源，存在诸多疑问和潜在主张，值得为了破产财产和破产申请前债权人的利益，由非债务人信义受托人展开调查。然而，在当前情况下，审查员目前无法提供任何益处。\n\n4. 341会议以及先前诉讼中的证据开示清楚表明，债务人在对其财务状况、资产和权益的任何调查中都将不予配合。此外，由此产生的任何报告都将属于传闻证据，对法院或利害关系方益处有限，但调查本身却耗时漫长并产生行政管理费用，从而损害广大债权人的利益。最重要的是，审查员的任何此类工作都将与Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会，以下简称“委员会”）的工作产生不必要的重复，并可能阻碍后者的工作，该委员会近期刚获指定并已聘请正迅速进入状态的律师。此外，委员会可以寻求派生诉讼资格以追偿债权，而审查员则不能。\n\n5. 此外，除其他事项外，基于Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官认定的债务人存在“通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员处，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为”，同样显而易见的是，无法指望债务人为了其破产财产和债权人的利益来归集整理资产。[见 ECF 102 附件 C（PAX案中2022年2月2日的决定和命令），第1页）]。然而，受托人此时能为破产财产带来的益处甚微。\n\n6. 债务人似乎没有任何可能对破产财产造成潜在影响且可在未经法院批准的情况下开展的明确常规经营活动，更不用说有任何需要立即指定受托人的活动了。在债务人寻求对任何非常规活动获得批准的范围内，委员会将对债务人的活动进行监督，并将进行干预以防止任何损害债权人利益的行为。受托人具体要管理或监督什么，目前根本不明确。此外，受托人可能开展的任何调查此时都会产生本可避免的行政管理费用，并将与委员会的工作产生重复，且可能阻碍委员会的工作。虽然在典型的第11章公司案件中，在类似事实下指定受托人是正当合理的，但本案的独特事实支持目前不指定受托人。一旦通过委员会的调查或其他途径获得更多信息，UST（或其他利害关系方）届时可在理由充分的情况下寻求指定受托人（或审查员）。\n\n7. 委员会最具动力和准备，能够迅速调查债务人的财务状况、资产和权益，并为破产财产及其债权人寻求追偿。事实上，根据《破产法典》第1103条，委员会负有调查债务人的行为、举止、资产、负债和财务状况，以及与案件或重整计划制定相关的任何其他事项的职责。11 U.S.C. § 1103(c)。委员会可向法院和UST报告其调查结果。应当给予委员会不受干扰地开展调查的机会，这将是在这个独特案件中最高效的推进方式。\n\n结论\n\n据此，债权人请求法院驳回UST动议中寻求指定审查员的部分，延期审议UST动议中寻求指定受托人的部分，并给予公正适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2022年4月6日 /s/ Kristin B. Mayhew  Kristin Mayhew MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 (203) 319-4000 kmayhew@mdmc-law.com\n\n- 以及 -\n\nCarollynn H.G. Callari（特别许可出庭） David S. Forsh（特别许可出庭） CALLARI PARTNERS LLC One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212) 202-3050 ccallari@callaripartners.com dforsh@callaripartners.com\n\nRui Ma（马锐）与Weican Meng（孟维参）之代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n我，Kristin B. Mayhew，特此证明上述《债权人Rui Ma与Weican Meng对美国受托人关于指定审查员或第11章受托人的动议的有限反对意见》的真实准确副本已于2022年4月6日向法院归档提交。本归档通知将通过法院电子归档系统的运行以电子邮件形式发送给所有当事方。各当事方可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本归档文件。\n\n> /s/ Kristin B. Mayhew Kristin B. Mayhew","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":1135,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:44:24"}